From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Flytoget has been listed as one of the Engineering and technology good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Trains (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon
P train.svg
Trains Portal
Sel week 28, 2008
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has had a peer review which is now archived.
WikiProject Companies (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Companies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of companies on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Norway (Rated GA-class)
WikiProject icon This article is part of WikiProject Norway, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to Norway. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.

GA Review[edit]

This review is transcluded from Talk:Flytoget/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
    The problems during construction are well covered, but I would like to see some more about issues during years of operation, otherwise it may look like a bit of a whitewash. Preferably this should go in a separate section, titled "Incidents", or something similar. A quick search on VG-nett revealed that there is plenty to take from: there seems to have been at least five deadly accidents: [1], [2], [3], [4], in one case the company was even fined for not informing drivers properly about a reduced speed area [5]. There have been plenty of delays, cancellations and minor accidents: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], rampant pickpockets: [13], [14], technical problems: [15], sabotage: [16], [17] and embezzlement: [18]. On the other hand it drew some positive attention when Al Gore decided to take Flytoget when receiving his Nobel Prize (though his luggage was sent by Mercedes...): [19]. I'm not saying all of this should be included, but some of it should, to provide balance. Yes check.svg Done
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
    See above. Yes check.svg Done
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Once this issue has been resovled the article should be ready to pass. Good luck! I am now passing the article, good job! Lampman Talk to me! 13:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to review the article; it is much appreciated, especially since you seem to have caught me overlooking the obvious. I have expanded the article with an incident section and some other small stuff, I hope it is to your liking—if not just call out and I shall look to it. As for all these death accidents, they are according to the Railway Inspectorate all suicides, though the press coverage is not particularly good at stating them as such. I have left out all individual coverages of those, and after skimming through all the annual reports from the inspectorate I cannot establish any other lethal incidents than the one in 1999. I have mentioned some, but not all derailings—they are a frequent enough affair that not all need be mentioned. Again, thanks for helping improving the article. Arsenikk (talk) 23:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the deaths are obviously all suicides - with the one exception - but the newspapers can't report them as such until after the investigations, and by then they've lost interest. Nasty business, as you're not only gonna kill yourself, but mess up the driver for life. Anyway, the improvements were more than I could hope for. The article looks great now, and I'm happy to promote it to GA, good job! Lampman Talk to me! 00:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was not moving, no consensus. GrooveDog FOREVER 01:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Airport Express TrainFlytoget — Suggesting move to Flytoget - due to common use in english (google?) (talk) 22:12, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Also all other articles are called flytoget, I'm english and I have no idea what "airport express train" is, I know what "flytoget" is though... (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree - the term seems common in east asian english usages especially for generic "airport train".Shortfatlad (talk) 23:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
  • The term Flytoget is not used in Britain, or I would have heard of it by now: I am British. Suggest rename the article Airport Express Train (Oslo)?, as there are many airport express trains in many countries. The term "airport express train" is clear to me, although I have not seen it before, it plainly means an express train going to or from an airport :: many airports have their own railway stations. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:57, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    • According to the company's website ([20]), the name of the service in English is "Flytoget, the Airport Express Train". Flytoget is therefore (IMO) the most appropriate name for the article; unlike (say) LNER vs Flying Scotsman, there's no need to distinguish the company from the service in this case - and the article on the historical UK service is at Flying Scotsman (train), not Scotch express (LNER). Tevildo (talk) 11:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. Clearly it was at Flytoget when it became a good article and was moved with no discussion.[21] (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    • However, it was the same person who brought the article from start to GA that changed the name, so this argument is not particularly valid. For instance, List of Oslo T-bane stations was moved to List of Oslo Metro stations after is went through FLC. A GA review is a significantly less holistic review that cannot be said to be a benchmark for anything. Arsenikk (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

OK moving page back to flytoget, as per it was the articles name when it became a "good article", it's the name used on english language version of company website, it's also the name used on all other language wikipedias.. Plus the move from flytoget was made without discussion in the first place...

It's clear that a disambiguations page is needed so I've made that. I think "Airport express train" should go to the disambig page since the term also seems to be used in common parlance for the Hong-Kong train so I will make that change. I've added a link to Airport rail link in the disambig page as suggested above.

It's possible that the page should be renamed "Flytoget (airport express train)", or "Flytoget, the airport express train" or something. That can come later.Shortfatlad (talk) 23:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

In English, the train is branded as the "Airport Express Train", although with the last update of the web site, the sign has shifted from focusing on the "Airport Express Train" to "Flytoget".

  • Oppose: I was the person who wrote the article, nominated it through good article under the name "Flytoget" and then afterwards moved it to "Airport Express Train". The main rule at WP:UE is that if an established, English version of the term is in common use, then that will be chosen over a Norwegian name. The Airport Express Train is the brand that the company has been marketing itself as in English since 1998, and still does by including the English name in the logo. I also noticed that a recent change to the wording of the web site has been introduced, but this could just as much be the choice of a web designer as that of a corporate rebranding. There are enough inconsistencies on the web site that nothing can be determined from it. More important: virtually all government agencies and government companies in Norway have an official English name (for instance the Norwegian School of Economics and Business Administration, Norwegian Food Safety Authority and the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation, all that have a completely different name in Norwegian). All Norwegian government institutions' articles are placed at their official English name on Wikipedia, and I see no reason the Airport Express Train should be any different. Another problem is that the term "Flytoget" is alienating for non-Scandinavian speakers, and the "Airport Express Train" is a better link, particularly from other articles, because "Flytoget" (from, for instance, an article about a train station) is not understandable. This was the main motivation for the move, because almost all links to "Flytoget" were piped to "Airport Express Train", so it would not need a sentence to be explained. To quote Bombardier (who built the trians): "The Airport Express Train (the so-called Flytoget)..." (source)
Concerning the issue of converting "Airport express train" to a redirect to airport rail link, I also oppose this. The Oslo system is the only system in the world to use the term "Airport Express Train". The system in Hong Kong is called "Airport Express", and most systems go under the term Foo Express (for instance Arlanda Express). I would tend to think that searching for "airport express train" (unlike, for instance, airport express, airport train and airport railway) is not plausible enough to warrent a redirect, but plausible enough to warrant a hatnote. Arsenikk (talk) 01:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't speak Norwegian, but "Flytoget" is just the name of this service (see the Norwegian article Flytoget), not a Norwegian _word_; it looks to me more like the Norwegian equivalent of Denglish. Although I accept that there may not be another airport rail service with this precise name, "Airport express train" is a perfectly ordinary English expression - a trademark lawyer would say that it was "devoid of any distinctive character", and it's not sufficient to distinguish this particular service from any other, except perhaps for someone with an intimate knowledge of Norwegian railways (who would definitely be familiar with "Flytoget"). In any case, if we're insisting that we only use the English words from the service's name, it should be "The Airport Express Train". Tevildo (talk) 11:20, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Maybe "Flytoget, the airport express train" (capitalisation?) would be good - it's what is used as a full title on the company page.
Also note the company name is Flytoget AS, which should be taken into account, if the article is in part or in whole about the company.Shortfatlad (talk) 18:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
I still think Flytoget on its own is the best solution - we can include the full title ("Flytoget, the Airport Express Train") in the article lead, of course. As things stand, I don't think it's necessary to split the article between the company (Flytoget AS) and the service; if that happens, whichever is the primary meaning should stay at Flytoget. Tevildo (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

revert war - Top speed[edit]

Seems to be 210km/h - bombardier gives the same figure Shortfatlad (talk) 23:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Where on earth does this 225 km/h come from? I could probably find ten sources that say 210 km/h. Arsenikk (talk) 01:06, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Request move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was Page Moved to Flytoget  Ronhjones  (Talk) 01:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Airport Express TrainOslo Airport Express Train — Avoid generic name when disambiguated alternatives are available; Either Flytoget or Oslo Airport Express Train fulfill the requirement. —Sladen (talk) 18:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

  • Support My preference was Airport Express Train (Oslo) but Oslo Airport Express Train is certainly acceptable, and an appropriate improvement. After the move, Airport Express Train should be redirected to airport rail link.--Labattblueboy (talk) 18:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Keep The organization and service has the English name 'Airport Express Train'; I have never come across the term 'Oslo Airport Express Train' in the multitude of sources I have looked through in researching this and other related articles. All Norwegian government organizations have an official name that is used in English, and for this particular organization it is the Airport Express Train. For instance, this can be seen here and here (both pages of the Government of Norway, who own the company) and the map of public transport in Oslo. Another issue is of course that the service does not only serve Oslo, but also Akershus (where among other things four stations and the airport are located) and Buskerud. I am uncertain why there is a need to disambiguate the term 'Airport Express Train'. While there are numerous systems called 'Airport Express', there are no other systems in the world that are branded as 'Airport Express Train'. This is easy to spot on the POV-fork page Airport Express Train (disambiguation) that links to several 'Airport Express' services, but none that claim to be called 'Airport Express Train', except this one. And 'Flytoget' is not suitable either. Although the legal name of the company, all Norwegian government agencies and companies are located at their official English name on Wikipedia. This can be compared to the University of Oslo, that although legally is called Universitet i Oslo, does not have that as its article title on Wikipedia. To explain the background of the Norwegian name: 'Flytog' is simply the Scandinavian term for an airport rail link, per for instance sv:Flygtåg and no:Flytog. Sticking an -et ending is the same in Norwegian as sticking 'the' in front of an English word. Therefore the Norwegian term is just as generic as the English term. Arsenikk (talk) 19:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
To try and respond to each of the points in-turn;
Google search Results
+"oslo airport express train" -wikipedia 31,600
  1. WP:GHITS is only a guide, but the above is probably the easiest way to demonstrate that the term is widely used and unambiguous.
  2. WP:OFFICIALNAMES explains that what an organisation calls itself is not necessary what Wikipedia should call its article. The secret here is context—Wikipedia has a global context and naming needs to reflect that (in order to avoid ambiguity). In the given example of a "Map of Oslo"; sufficient context ("Oslo") has already been provided.
  3. The article discusses an Express Train, which travels from various places, to Oslo Airport. It does serve many places before reaching Oslo Airport but there is little need to include those by name in the title.
  4. The railway service connecting the neighbouring Stockholm-Arlanda Airport introduces itself (in the first paragraph of the first page) as "The airport express train..."[22].
  5. "Flytoget" appeared to be have been highly suitable (and unique, and unambigious) name that was in happy use without an issue for over five years (since 7 August 2003[23]) until it was unilaterally moved without discussion earlier this year[24]. As far as I can tell from reading the #Flytoget discussion above, only a single editor supported this action.
  6. The example of the University of Oslo already contains sufficient global context within its name—this is not merely about straight translation; Eg. transliterating Jernbaneverket into English makes no sense with the additional context of "Norway".
  7. It is somewhat inconvenient that a generic term was used in Norwegian—but that generic Norwegian term is however unique within an English language context. (As would be Flygtåg, or Flytog!). The particular "Flytoget" brand name choice, based on its qualities as a bilingual pun, should not be overlooked.
This article really should not need disambiguation; that the {{dablink}} and resulting Airport Express Train (disambiguation) page is there is indicative that the article title is not ideal. They are there as a result of "airport express train" (capitalised or not) being a non-specific, generic term in the English language...; its transliteration is not unique.
Spot the odd one out of af:Flytoget, commons:Flytoget, da:Flytoget, de:Flytoget AS, en:Airport Express Train, en:Category:Flytoget, en:Template:Flytoget, nl:Flytoget, no:Flytoget, nn:Flytoget, sv:Flytoget. Now, were there any points that I missed? —Sladen (talk) 21:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
There's a couple of reasons, taken together which perhaps makes Airport Express Train (Oslo) less than ideal:
  1. The brackets mean that its links will virtually always end up being WP:PIPED. (Meaning more typing)
  2. Per WP:EGG, links should still be intuitive and predictable. Simply having a link to "airport express train" would be expected to go to an article about "airport express trains" in general; meaning that to fulfill WP:EGG you need to insert some means of specificality, Beyond Simple Capital Letters; eg. Transport: The [[Airport Express Train (Olso)|Olso Airport Express Train]] ("{{lang|no|Flytoget}}") is an [[airport rail link|airport express train]] connecting various places with [[Oslo Airport, Gardermoen]] to the north of the capital. or perhaps [[Oslo Airport, Gardermoen|]] is connected to the Greater Oslo area by the "[[Airport Express Train (Olso)|Flytoget]]" [[airport rail link|airport express train]].
The other two options don't have this issue; "... Oslo Airport Express Train" is fairly easy to fit into a sentence without pipes, and "Flytoget" is even easier to fit in, because it is a one-word brand name. —Sladen (talk) 23:06, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree entirely; anything other than Flytoget is less-than-ideal. However, I feel the disambiguated version might be an acceptable compromise with those editors who consider "Airport Express Train" to be the only acceptable name for the service. "Oslo Airport Express Train" isn't the official name of the service; if the intention is just to describe rather than name the service, that would suggest something like "Oslo Airport rail link". I'm not _opposing_ "Oslo Airport Express Train", though. Tevildo (talk) 10:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Support as per User:Sladen point 5 (and 7). Comment - User:Arsennik really shouldn't be reverting page moves to the original name, [25] when they made the original change without discussion themselves. Change and stonewall undos is not policy !Shortfatlad (talk) 10:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Updates needed[edit]

The article badly needs updated facts and figures. 2007 was eight years ago! How have passenger numbers developed? Or the train share of the total airport trips? Revenues and income? How is the project regarded now some years later? Is it considered successful or has it failed to live up to expectations? --Bjarki (talk) 20:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)